[QUOTE=Neckhammer;917356]StackingPlates looks to be a young healthy guy. Getting across preventative change to a fellow like that is damn near impossible. What is he to expect from changing what he does? If you already feel good and are in relatively good health....well its not going to take you from there to being superhuman. You have to be able to see the wide and long view.[/QUOTE]

This is true, although probably not as young as assumed, and I try all sorts of self experimentation on myself as it allows me to more intelligently speak to those I work with - some of which thrive upon Paleo™ style living and diet. For this reason, I would ask that you not paint me with a brush that makes it sounds as if I'm closed minded in any way. If anything, I look at all the available evidence and make educated decisions based upon the data that's available. For example, I went about 18 months on a strict Paleo™ diet and didn't get to "superhuman" status as you seem to hint that being on the diet will do by default.

In fact, many of my lifts remained stagnant (some decreased) during the time I was strictly on the diet. It didn't cause me any negative effects besides the performance in the gym and the feeling that I was in dietary jail, per se, but I saw no tangible benefits from a personal perspective. Getting back onto the StackingPlates™ diet plan based upon discretionary calorie allowance (DCA) after those ~18 months was liberating as both strength increases and sanity returned with each pizza and bowl of ice cream I ate.

On a side note, when will my insidious weight gain start? I'm getting very anxious... :)

[ATTACH]8673[/ATTACH]

Now, as much as the hardcore believers want to believe to the contrary, Paleo™ is just a tool and is no better or worse than a plethora of other dietary and lifestyle tools out there (this does not include folks with food disorders who should not be relevant to the discussion that follows). [1]

In fact, those who are gung ho, absolutely positive, that it is superior from a health perspective may want to rethink this belief based on empirical and scientific analysis on the topic. Bray et al have already dispelled the notion that "clean eating" exists by comparing hormonal differences between groups eating fast food and food thought traditionally as "clean" [2]. The study limitation is that it is just a snapshot and not a long term study however it does support the notion that a diet predominantly filled with whole, minimally processed food while hitting caloric/micro/macro sufficiency will not be adversely effected by eating what Paleo clan-folk refer to as "junk" from time to time.

Empirically, all we have to do is look at the healthiest societies in the world and use them as a template to extrapolate dietary data from. Many of the longest living societies in the world [3] such as the famous Blue Zone societies eat CHO filled diets with many foods Paleo™ dieters would run away from. One such example [4], the Okinawans, eat ~800-2500g of grains per day yet live the longest. Far from conclusive evidence that supports Paleo™ being the "healthiest" diet in existence. More like one of many potential ends to a mean.

[QUOTE=Paleobird;917393]Sure. Well, first of all, my special snowflake metabolism is 50 years old, post menopausal, and taking some medications for epilepsy.
So, don't take my numbers as gospel any more than the official chart's numbers. You need to find your own.

The idea that cutting and cutting calories damages the metabolism I think comes from people with sugar burning metabolisms. It is incredibly stressful on a sugar burner to go without food (shaky dizzy, lethargy, etc.). People who have transitioned to being what Mark calls a fat burning beast are not damaged by calorie restriction at all. Burning your own body fat gives the metabolism a nice tasty snack to go along with the lower levels of dietary calories, so there is no damage.

This was the way we survived famines for millions of years. It's a natural process.

The modern day famine is a Weight Watchers diet which just gives you smaller portions of "all the foods you love". It gives you enough sugar/carbs to keep you in sugar burning mode and low enough calories to keep you miserable. This kind of calorie restriction done repeatedly to the body definitely can lead to damage to the metabolic systems.

But WW dieting should not give all caloric restriction a bad rep.[/QUOTE]

Thank you! That makes sense

07-31-2012, 12:24 PM

magnolia1973

[QUOTE]Yup. But by continuing to restrict more and more the individual ends up doing even more harm to their metabolism. They force their body to conform to 1000 calories, when they could be burning 1600 while losing weight. And then they blame a "slow metabolism" for their inability to eat a higher intake because they'll "gain weight" immediately. [/QUOTE]

But if CICO is the solution, and you stop losing for an extended period of time at X calories, even with exercise, then you have no choice but to cut calories further, maintain or increase calories and slowly gain. It seems like a lot of people get down to you know, 1200/1400 calories a day and don't see scale loss OR themselves getting smaller and are already exercising. I think this is pretty common. I know that when you go then, have a 1600 calorie day and gain 2 lbs it's water.... but if you keep stringing those 1600 days weight creeps back on.

Yeah- if you can maintain at 2000 calories, cutting to 1000 to lose weight fast is just not a good long term solution.

I mean, I'm not sure what else to blame other than a "slow metabolism".... yeah, I (we) made it, but how do we correct it? If increasing calories adds fat back on, what does one do?

07-31-2012, 12:26 PM

Hawkward

[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;917125]Apparently the Krispy Kreme McMuffin thing was such a hit it's being repeated.

I'm sorry, but even 5 years ago I wouldn't have wanted to eat that. I've never really cared for doughnuts, and btw that's "fat free cheese." Has anyone actually TRIED fat free cheese? It's basically skim milk, xanthan gum, modified food starch and tons of salt. It tastes like super salty plastic. DISGUSTING. Hell, even whole milk Kraft singles are disgusting. How anyone can eat American cheese in those individuals wrappers is beyond me. If he at least used regular bagels, he could have fat normal cheese into his macros...ugh.[/QUOTE]
Now [I]that's[/I] funny. Krispey Kreme donuts being used as the "bun", but they used fat free cheese. At least they didn't get any arterycloggingsaturatedfat from the cheese!

07-31-2012, 12:28 PM

StackingPlates

[QUOTE=magnolia1973;917414]
I mean, I'm not sure what else to blame other than a "slow metabolism".... yeah, I (we) made it, but how do we correct it? If increasing calories adds fat back on, what does one do?[/QUOTE]

I would urge you to read up on "reverse dieting" where calories are increased very slowly over long periods of time...

07-31-2012, 12:38 PM

Paleobird

@Stackingplates' long rant.

Oh goodness, not the Okinawans. Again. OK. One more time just in case Choco hasn't beat this point home often enough. Paleo does not necessarily equal low carb. There is a wide range of healthy carb levels. Based on your activity level, you may very well have been eating too little carbs *for you*. So your workouts were not great and you chucked the whole thing instead of making it work. And you have this weird need to ridicule those of us who do make it work.

About clean eating, you showed the flaw in the study yourself. It was not long term. So, you like your pizza and ice cream. If you are young and super active, it won't hurt you once in a while. Enjoy those treats on a regular basis, not so much. I would like to see how you look at age 45. 'Nuff said.

07-31-2012, 12:38 PM

Neckhammer

[QUOTE=StackingPlates;917407]This is true, although probably not as young as assumed, and I try all sorts of self experimentation on myself as it allows me to more intelligently speak to those I work with - some of which thrive upon Paleo™ style living and diet. For this reason, I would ask that you not paint me with a brush that makes it sounds as if I'm closed minded in any way. If anything, I look at all the available evidence and make educated decisions based upon the data that's available. For example, I went about 18 months on a strict Paleo™ diet and didn't get to "superhuman" status as you seem to hint that being on the diet will do by default.

In fact, many of my lifts remained stagnant (some decreased) during the time I was strictly on the diet. It didn't cause me any negative effects besides the performance in the gym and the feeling that I was in dietary jail, per se, but I saw no tangible benefits from a personal perspective. Getting back onto the StackingPlates™ diet plan based upon discretionary calorie allowance (DCA) after those ~18 months was liberating as both strength increases and sanity returned with each pizza and bowl of ice cream I ate.

On a side note, when will my insidious weight gain start? I'm getting very anxious... :)

[ATTACH]8673[/ATTACH]

Now, as much as the hardcore believers want to believe to the contrary, Paleo™ is just a tool and is no better or worse than a plethora of other dietary and lifestyle tools out there (this does not include folks with food disorders who should not be relevant to the discussion that follows). [1]

In fact, those who are gung ho, absolutely positive, that it is superior from a health perspective may want to rethink this belief based on empirical and scientific analysis on the topic. Bray et al have already dispelled the notion that "clean eating" exists by comparing hormonal differences between groups eating fast food and food thought traditionally as "clean" [2]. The study limitation is that it is just a snapshot and not a long term study however it does support the notion that a diet predominantly filled with whole, minimally processed food while hitting caloric/micro/macro sufficiency will not be adversely effected by eating what Paleo clan-folk refer to as "junk" from time to time.

Empirically, all we have to do is look at the healthiest societies in the world and use them as a template to extrapolate dietary data from. Many of the longest living societies in the world [3] such as the famous Blue Zone societies eat CHO filled diets with many foods Paleo™ dieters would run away from. One such example [4], the Okinawans, eat ~800-2500g of grains per day yet live the longest. Far from conclusive evidence that supports Paleo™ being the "healthiest" diet in existence. More like one of many potential ends to a mean.

Didn't mean to paint you with any brush. I will just concede that you have probably "done your homework" and come to a different conclusion than I.

As to the "superhuman" thing....what I said was that eating paleo actually would NOT make you superhuman. Being healthy to start, you are unlikely to see much change with your lifestyle change to paleo.

I you are healthy you can probably get away with eating "junk" from time to time. I'm not certain that there will be no draw backs health wise from it though....as you seem to be. Even so, I'm not 100% anything and have a significant cheat day at least once a week (not necessarily a planned body hack or anything so eliquent. Just happens).

I do think that as we age we may lose some of this flexibility and lea way. Are you able to take advantage of the lea way when young and not pay for it in the future is my only real question. Most chronic issues do take decades to develop, so I think there are subtle changes that may rear their head in the future if you overindulge....even in my case where it is only once a week.

07-31-2012, 12:44 PM

Urban Forager

[QUOTE=Neckhammer;917356]Stacking looks to be a young healthy guy. Getting across preventative change to a fellow like that is damn near impossible. What is he to expect from changing what he does? If you already feel good and are in relatively good health....well its not going to take you from there to being superhuman. You have to be able to see the wide and long view.[/QUOTE]

The thing is less than optimum health can sneak up on you. I'm 52 I've been eating primal for 2 yrs. I had a little over 20 lbs to loose and i lost it in the first 6 months eating 80/20. When my husband and I decided to eat more fully primal "strict" I thought I would not see much difference but I did it to support my husband who wanted to loose weight. So what did I found out? I found out that I'd been living with low level discomfort that wasn't extreme enough to do anything about. I know this now because I can feel the difference, no more headaches, no more stiff joints and I sleep better than I ever remember. I haven't really lost any more weight, but my body composition has changed, I am a lot stronger and I have more energy. Those are not differences that are going to convince any one to change or believe that paleo makes a significant difference in overall health. I don't care what other people think I know from my own experience it's been worth it for me.

07-31-2012, 12:46 PM

Nady

[QUOTE=magnolia1973;917414]But if CICO is the solution, and you stop losing for an extended period of time at X calories, even with exercise, then you have no choice but to cut calories further, maintain or increase calories and slowly gain. It seems like a lot of people get down to you know, 1200/1400 calories a day and don't see scale loss OR themselves getting smaller and are already exercising. I think this is pretty common. I know that when you go then, have a 1600 calorie day and gain 2 lbs it's water.... but if you keep stringing those 1600 days weight creeps back on.

Yeah- if you can maintain at 2000 calories, cutting to 1000 to lose weight fast is just not a good long term solution.

I mean, I'm not sure what else to blame other than a "slow metabolism".... yeah, I (we) made it, but how do we correct it? If increasing calories adds fat back on, what does one do?[/QUOTE]If you're really going to 'think' H/G, then eat that way too~ some days the gathering (salad/veggies) is good, others, the hunting (meat) is what's for dinner. Never eat the same foods, same number of calories day after day~ just gives the body a pattern/energy level to adapt to~ and it will. Shake things up, keep the system guessing. Over a week's time, you will have a reduction in calories and also avoid the 'I'm on a diet' mindset!

07-31-2012, 01:02 PM

labmonkey

[QUOTE=Nady;917435]If you're really going to 'think' H/G, then eat that way too~ some days the gathering (salad/veggies) is good, others, the hunting (meat) is what's for dinner. Never eat the same foods, same number of calories day after day~ just gives the body a pattern/energy level to adapt to~ and it will. Shake things up, keep the system guessing. Over a week's time, you will have a reduction in calories and also avoid the 'I'm on a diet' mindset![/QUOTE]

I wish I could do this. It makes such prefect sense and I tell others that's what needs to be done but, then I fall in a rut and get into a routine. Annoying really. Also, I've thought about doing a full vegetarian day. Sometimes I feel like I'm so full of meat that I feel, heavy, bloated?? not sure of the word. Any other ladies felt this? Maybe that's my gatherer genetics shining through. :)